The Campaign Process

Transcription

1 13 Listen to Chapter 13 on MyPoliSciLab The Campaign Process resident Barack Obama faced no internal challenges for the Democratic nomination for president in This gave President Obama an immediate advantage in P the presidential election because he did not have to focus his efforts on competition within the party. As a result, he was able to build on the successful infrastructure he had created in 2008 and focus his efforts on fundraising and building an on-the-ground game, particularly in swing states. On the Republican side, more than ten candidates engaged in a several month-long primary battle. At various points, former Senator Rick Santorum, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and a range of other candidates, including Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann were the frontrunners for the nomination. In April 2012, at long last, the GOP chose former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. If there was residual angst in the Republican Party over Governor Romney s selection to fill the top spot on the GOP ticket, it seemed to fade after the selection of Representative Paul Ryan as Romney s running mate. Following the party s convention, Republicans appeared to unite in their efforts to hold President Obama to a single term as president. With the economy as the dominant issue, both candidates emphasized experience as the key to being successful over the next four years. The President claimed his leadership was responsible for getting the nation s economy back on track, while Mitt Romney argued that there had been little improvement and touted his experience as a successful businessman as key selling points with voters. The election, ultimately, would turn on the question of whether the American people believed conditions were getting better or worse. Would they blame the sitting president for the nation s problems and turn him out of office in favor of a candidate with business experience, or would they trust that the president was delivering and moving forward, albeit slowly, on his promise of Change four years earlier? 13.1 Trace the evolution of political campaigns in the United States, p Assess the role of candidates and their staff in the campaign process, p Evaluate the ways campaigns raise money, p Identify the ways campaigns use the media to reach potential voters, p Analyze the 2012 presidential campaign, p

2 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS LEAVE INDELIBLE MARKS ON THE NATION Above, Theodore Roosevelt gives a campaign speech from the back of a train in Below, President Barack Obama celebrates his 2012 reelection with his wife, Michelle, and daughters, Sasha and Malia. 391

3 MyPoliSciLab Videos Watch on MyPoliSciLab 1 The Big Picture Are politicians always campaigning? Author Larry J. Sabato singles out the characteristics political parties are looking for in the candidates they nominate for office, and he proves why the economy more than any other issue is what interests voters the most. The Basics Do you have trouble figuring out when all the elections are and who you should vote for? If you do, you are not alone. This video will help you understand why the United States has so many types of elections, what purposes they serve, and whether money and campaign staff is vital to campaign victories. 2 3 In Context Discover why voting and elections are essential to a democracy. In this video, Fordham University political scientist Costas Panagopolos discusses why voting is important in the United States. He also explains how electoral reforms have expanded the voting population throughout the years. Thinking Like a Political Scientist Discover how scholars respond when voter turnout even in presidential elections declines, as it did during the last half of the twentieth century. Fordham University political scientist Costas Panagopolos explorers the research behind this issue, recent trends, and factors that may explain these outcomes. 4 5 In the Real World In its controversial Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court ruled that money is speech and thus the courts cannot put a limit on the amount of money an individual or a corporation spends on an election. Real people decide whether or not they agree with that decision, and they consider some of its long-term implications. So What? Learn how the election system works and how you can improve it. 6 Author Larry J. Sabato reflects on the ways social media and smartphone technology could change how campaigns are conducted in the future, even if faceto-face communication is still the most effective way to win voters. 392

4 Both campaigns vigorously pursued electors in all key battleground states, and both campaigns included grassroots organizing in all fifty states, relying on extensive use of technology and social networking sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and s. Romney s campaign banked on a strategy that would require him to win back many of the states that Obama took in 2008 but that George W. Bush had carried in These included states like Indiana, as well as key swing states such as Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire and North Carolina. Obama s campaign believed that if they could convince voters to turn out and support them as they had in 2008, the path to reelection would be smooth. This strategy proved successful when, on Election Day, the Obama campaign held together a coalition of women, African Americans, Hispanics, and young voters to secure a second term for the president. With the exception of Indiana and North Carolina, which supported Mitt Romney, Obama carried every other state he had won in Shortly before midnight, networks projected Ohio for the Democrats and Obama secured the necessary 270 Electoral College votes to be declared the winner of the 2012 presidential election. Ultimately, after securing victory in Florida on the Saturday after the election, President Obama won a total of 332 votes in the Electoral College to Romney s 206. No doubt, many Democrats will claim that this significant victory in the Electoral College gives Obama a mandate for his second term in office. However, Republicans point to Obama s comparatively smaller margin of victory 3 percent in the popular vote and claim that Americans are more divided than the Electoral College results indicate. Modern political campaigns have become high-stakes, high-priced extravaganzas, but the basic purpose of modern electioneering remains intact: one person asking another for support. The art of modern campaigning involves the management of a large budget and staff, the planning of sophisticated voter outreach efforts, and the creation of high-tech Internet and social media sites that provide continuous communication updates and organize voter and donor support. Campaigning also involves the diplomatic skill of unifying disparate individuals and groups to achieve a fragile electoral majority. How candidates perform these exquisitely difficult tasks is the subject of this chapter. nomination campaign Phase of a political campaign aimed at winning a primary election Roots of Modern Political Campaigns 13.1 Trace the evolution of political campaigns in the United States. C ampaigns are dynamic, unpredictable, and exciting. No two political campaigns are the same. Despite the unique qualities of each race, however, most electoral contests are similar in structure, consisting of a nomination campaign and a general election campaign. The Nomination Campaign The nomination campaign, the phase of a political campaign aimed at winning a primary election, begins as soon as the candidate has decided to run for office. This may be years prior to the actual election. During the nomination campaign, the candidates target party leaders and interest groups. They test out themes, slogans, and strategies, and learn to adjust to the pressure of being in the spotlight day in and day out. This is the time for candidates to learn that a single careless phrase could end the campaign or guarantee a defeat. The press and public take much less notice of gaffes at this time than they will later, in the general election campaign. 393

5 13.1 general election campaign Phase of a political campaign aimed at winning election to office. A danger not always heeded by candidates during the nomination campaign is that, in the quest to win the party s nomination, a candidate can move too far to the right or left and appear too extreme to the electorate in November. Party activists are generally more ideologically extreme than party-identified voters in the general electorate, and activists participate in primaries and caucuses at a relatively high rate. If a candidate tries too hard to appeal to the interests of party elites, he or she jeopardizes the ultimate goal of winning the election. Conservative Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican nominee for president, and liberal George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic nominee for president, both fell victim to this phenomenon in seeking their party s nomination Goldwater going too far right, and McGovern going too far left and they were handily defeated in the general elections by Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon, respectively. The General Election Campaign After earning the party s nomination, candidates embark on the general election campaign, or the phase of a political campaign aimed at winning election to office. Unlike the nomination campaign, in which candidates must run against members of their own political party, during the general election campaign, candidates in partisan elections 394 WHY ARE POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS IMPORTANT? Political campaigns help voters to make informed choices on Election Day. They do this through a complex set of political tools, including media signs and slogans. Here, a sign encourages voters to endorse Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard M. Nixon for president and vice president, respectively, in 1952.

6 Explore Your World Political candidates ultimately become lawmakers and policy makers. As a result, many states around the world have identified a need to make their candidate pools more representative of the country s population at large. One way of achieving this goal is by adopting quotas that mandate a certain percentage of candidates come from traditionally underrepresented groups, such as women or ethnic or religious minorities. Examine the chart below to consider whether candidate quotas translate into greater representation in government; this example focuses on women as candidates and members of the lower house of each country s legislature Women played an active role in writing the Rwandan constitution adopted after the late 1990s genocide. They demanded that seats be reserved for women in the legislature; today Rwanda has the highest percentage of female lawmakers in the world. Rwanda Sweden South Africa Germany New Zealand Mexico United Kingdom Country Italy Peru China Cambodia Israel France UAE United States Turkey Russia India Japan Brazil Panama Egypt World Average Percent of All Seats Held by Women Reserved Seats Legislated Candidate Quotas Voluntary Party Quotas No Quotas The global average for percentage of women in the lower house of the legislature is 19 percent. The United States lags below this figure. Egypt, where fewer than 2 percent of legislators are women, passed a quota law in May Japanese women lag behind their male counterparts in both public and private leadership positions. The government has recently considered adopting quota laws to narrow these gaps. SOURCE: Focus: Women in Parliament, The Economist (May 9, 2012): The Quota Project, Data as of March 31, CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS 1. Does there appear to be a relationship between quota laws and percentages of women in government? 2. How might quota laws improve the representation of women s issues in government and politics? In what ways might they be ineffective? 3. Should the United States adopt a law requiring that a certain percentage of political candidates be women? Why or why not? 395

7 13.1 run against nominees from other political parties. All eligible voters, regardless of political party, have the opportunity to vote in these elections. For this reason, most political scientists suggest that candidates running in general elections have an incentive to move their positions on political issues toward the ideological center. These scholars argue that candidates representing the two major parties are unlikely to lose the votes of party loyalists. The citizens whose votes are up for grabs are often political moderates, and choosing middle-of-the-road positions on controversial issues may help to attract the votes of these individuals. The length of the general election campaign varies widely from state to state, depending on the date of the primary elections. In states that hold primary elections in January, the general election campaign can be quite long. However, in states that hold primary elections in September, the general election campaign is quite short. The length of this campaign season affects how candidates structure their campaigns, how they raise money, whom they meet along the campaign trail, and even their advertising strategies. Assembling a Campaign Staff Assess the role of candidates and their staff in the campaign process. andidates are the center of political campaigns. While a candidate may not C make all of the decisions, or even have the expertise or knowledge to handle the wide variety of issues and concerns that affect the campaign, it is ultimately the candidate s name that appears on the ballot. And, on Election Day, voters hold only the candidate truly accountable. Candidates employ a wide variety of people to help them run an effective campaign. Most candidates for higher offices hire a campaign manager, finance chair, and communications staff. They may also contract the assistance of a variety of political consultants. In addition, candidates rely on networks of grassroots volunteers to spread the campaign s message and to get out the vote. 396 The Candidate Before there can be a campaign, there must be a candidate. Candidates run for office for any number of reasons, including personal ambition, the desire to promote ideological objectives or pursue specific public policies, or simply because they think they can do a better job than their opponents. 1 In any case, to be successful, candidates must spend a considerable amount of time and energy in pursuit of their desired office, and all candidates must be prepared to expose themselves and often their families to public scrutiny and the chance of rejection by the voters. In an effort to show voters they are hardworking, thoughtful, and worthy of the office they seek, candidates try to meet as many citizens as possible in the course of a campaign. To some degree, such efforts are symbolic, especially for presidential candidates, since it is possible to have direct contact with only a small fraction of the millions of people who are likely to vote in a presidential contest. But, one should not discount the value of visiting numerous localities both to increase media coverage and to motivate local activists who are working for the candidate s campaign. Thus, a typical candidate maintains an exhausting schedule. The day may begin at 5:00 a.m. at the entrance gate to an auto plant with an hour or two of handshaking, followed by similar glad-handing at subway stops until 9:00 a.m. Strategy sessions with key advisers and preparation for upcoming presentations and forums may fill the rest of the morning. A luncheon talk, afternoon fundraisers, and a series of media interviews crowd the afternoon agenda. Cocktail parties are followed by a dinner speech, perhaps telephone or neighborhood canvassing of voters, and a civic

8 forum or two. Meetings with advisers and planning for the next day s events can easily take a candidate past midnight. After only a few hours of sleep, the candidate starts all over again. The hectic pace of campaigning can strain the candidate s family life and leaves little time for reflection and long-range planning. After months of this grueling pace, candidates may be functioning on automatic pilot and often commit gaffes, from referring to the wrong city s sports team to fumbling an oft-repeated stump speech. Candidates also are much more prone to lose their tempers, responding sharply to criticism from opponents and even the media when they believe they have been characterized unfairly. These frustrations and the sheer exhaustion only get worse when a candidate believes he or she is on the verge of defeat and the end of the campaign is near. campaign manager The individual who travels with the candidate and coordinates the campaign The Campaign Staff Paid staff, political consultants, and dedicated volunteers work behind the scenes to support the candidate. Collectively, they plan general strategy, conduct polls, write speeches, craft the campaign s message, and design a communications plan to disseminate that message in the form of TV advertisements, radio spots, Web sites, and direct mail pieces. Others are responsible for organizing fund-raising events, campaign rallies, and direct voter contacts. It is important to note that the campaign staff varies significantly in size and nature, depending on the type of race. Presidential, senatorial, and gubernatorial races employ large professional staffs and a number of different consultants and pollsters. In contrast, races for state legislatures will likely have only a paid campaign manager and rely heavily on volunteer workers (see Figure 13.1). CAMPAIGN MANAGER A campaign manager runs nearly every campaign at the state and national level. The campaign manager travels with the candidate and coordinates the campaign. He or she is the person closest to the candidate who makes the essential day-to-day decisions, such as whom to hire and when to air TV and radio WHAT ROLE DO CAMPAIGN STAFF PLAY? Staff assist the candidate with much of the day-to-day work of running a political campaign. Here, presidential candidate Mitt Romney holds a meeting on his campaign bus with senior advisors Stuart Stevens and Eric Ferhnstrom and campaign manager Beth Myers. 397

9 13.1 finance chair The individual who coordinates the financial business of the campaign. President Barack Obama s Campaign Organization Obama for America Senior Campaign Staff Campaign Manager: Jim Messina Consultant: David Axelrod Senior Advisors: Robert Gibbs, Jim Margolis Director of Opinion Research: David Simas Deputy Campaign Managers: Jen Dillon O'Malley, Juliana Smoot, Stephanie Cutter, Steve Hildebrand Operations Chief Operating Officer: Ann Marie Habershaw Director of State Operations: David Levine Chief Financial Officer: Mary Beth Schulz General Counsel: Bob Bauer Communications Senior Communications Advisor: David Axelrod Communications Director: Brent Colburn National Press Secretary: Ben LaBolt Traveling Press Secretary: Jen Psaki Scheduling and Advance: Lisa Kohnke Director of Rapid Response: Lis Smith Director of Speechwriting: Stephen Krupin Political Political Director: Katherine Archuleta Deputy National Political Director: Yohannes Abraham Youth Vote Director: Valeisha Butterfield-Jones Research and Polling Research Director: Elizabeth Jarvis-Shean Lead Pollster/Senior Strategist: Joel Benenson Joseph R. Biden Staff Chief of Staff: Sheila Nix Deputy Chief of Staff: Scott Mulhauser Communications Director: Sam B. King Press Secretary: Amy Dudley Finance Finance Director: Rufus Gifford Deputy Finance Director: Elizabeth Lowery Director of Grassroots Fundraising: Yolanda Magallanes National Finance Chair: Matthew Barzun Internet and Information Technology Chief Technology Officer: James Harper Reed Digital Director: Teddy Goff Online Organizer: Betsy Hoover Social Media Content Manager: Jessi Langsen Video: Stephen Muller Caitlin Mitchell Internet Advertising: Andrew Bleeker Policy Policy Director: James Kvaal Senior Policy Strategist: Joel Benenson Healthcare Policy Director: Christen Linke Young National Security Coordinator: Marie Harf Field Field Director: Jeremy Bird Battleground States Director: Mitch Stewart Michelle Obama Staff Senior Advisor and Chief of Staff: Allyson Laackman Communications Director: Olivia Alair FIGURE 13.1 HOW IS A CAMPAIGN STAFF ORGANIZED? Presidential candidates have large staffs that help them run the day-to-day operations of their lengthy campaigns to be the chief executive of the United States. Among these officers are the campaign manager, finance chair, communications director, and a large number of professional political consultants. The diagram below shows the staff of the 2012 Barack Obama campaign. SOURCE: Updated with data from advertisements. The campaign manager also helps to determine the campaign s overall strategy and works to keep the campaign on message throughout the race. He or she works directly for the campaign; therefore, campaign managers can usually run only one campaign during a given election cycle. In some cases, the campaign manager may be the only full-time employee of the campaign. 398 FINANCE CHAIR The major role of the finance chair is to coordinate the financial efforts of the campaign. This job includes raising money, keeping records of funds

10 How Are People Involved in Politics? Explore on MyPoliSciLab There are a lot of ways to participate in politics. According to the 2008 American National Election Study, most Americans have attended a city council meeting, participated in a school board meeting, or signed a paper petition. But many have not protested, given money to political organizations, or distributed political information. How people engage in politics and how often is in part a function of efficacy, or whether or not individuals believe they have a say in government. Political Activity Signed a paper petition Attended a city council or school board meeting 56% 55% Gave money to a social/political organization 42% Attended meeting on a political or social issue 34% Distributed social/political group information Joined a protest rally or march 21% 19% Do You Have a Say in Government? I HAVE A SAY I DON T HAVE A SAY 67% 69% 50% Of individuals who believe they have a say in government, over two-thirds attend government meetings and sign petitions. Half also give money to political and social organizations. They are personally and financially active in politics. 44% 51% 46% Less than 20% of individuals who do NOT believe they have a say in government take part in protests or disseminate information. They are generally less active than people who think they have a say. 33% 24% 24% 24% 17% 17% SOURCE: Data from the American National Election Studies, 2008 Time Series Studies, post-election interview responses only. Investigate Further Concept What are the most frequent forms of participation? Americans most frequently participate by attending local government meetings and signing paper petitions. Attending protests and rallies and distributing political information are less common. Connection How are city council and school board meetings different from protests and petitions? Council and board meetings can make policy for government. Protests and petitions are ways of communicating information about issues to people with authority to make policy. Cause How is participation related to efficacy? Those who believe they don t have a say in government are generally less active, while those who do think they have a say are more likely to engage. Regardless of their perceived influence, people are more likely to interact with institutions than to protest or disseminate information. 399

11 communications director The person who develops the overall media strategy for the candidate. press secretary The individual charged with interacting and communicating with journalists on a daily basis. campaign consultant A private-sector professional who sells to a candidate the technologies, services, and strategies required to get that candidate elected. pollster A campaign consultant who conducts public opinion surveys. voter canvass The process by which a campaign reaches individual voters, either by doorto-door solicitation or by telephone. get-out-the-vote (GOTV) A push at the end of a political campaign to encourage supporters to go to the polls. received and spent, and filing the required paperwork with the Federal Election Commission, the bureaucratic agency in charge of monitoring campaign activity. As the cost of campaigns has risen and fund-raising has become more important, the finance chair has also grown in prestige and significance. Although a volunteer accountant may fill the role of finance chair in state and local elections, candidates for most federal offices hire someone to fill this position. COMMUNICATIONS STAFF A communications director, who develops the overall media strategy for the campaign, heads the communications staff. It is the communications director s job to stay apprised of newspaper, TV, radio, and Internet coverage, as well as supervise media consultants who craft campaign advertisements. Coordinating these many media sources can be challenging, as we will discuss later in this chapter. In many campaigns, the communications director works closely with the press secretary. The press secretary interacts and communicates with journalists on a daily basis and acts as the spokesperson for the campaign. It is the press secretary s job to be quoted in news coverage, to explain the candidate s issue positions, and to react to the actions of opposing candidates. He or she also has the job of delivering bad news and responding to attacks from opponents or interest groups. (It is better not to have the candidate doing the dirty work of the campaign.) An increasingly significant part of the campaign s communications staff is the Internet team, which manages the campaign s online communications, outreach, and fund-raising. Members of the Internet team post on blogs advocating for the candidate and create candidate profiles on social networking sites. They may organize Web chats or real-world meet-ups and grassroots events. They also act as important liaisons with the campaign s volunteers. CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS Campaign consultants are the private-sector professionals and firms who sell the technologies, services, and strategies many candidates need to get elected. The number of consultants has grown exponentially since they first appeared in the 1930s, and their specialties and responsibilities have increased accordingly, to the point that campaign consultants are now an important part of many campaigns at the state and national level. 2 Candidates generally hire specialized consultants who focus on only one or two areas, such as fund-raising, polling, media relations, Internet outreach, and speech writing. Media consultants, for example, design advertisements for distribution on TV, the Internet, radio, billboards, and flyers. They work with the communications director to craft the campaign s message and spin key issues. Pollsters, on the other hand, are campaign consultants who conduct public opinion surveys. These studies gather opinions from a candidate s potential constituents. They are useful because they can tell a candidate where he or she stands relative to opponents, or can provide useful information about the issues and positions important to voters. Pollsters may also work with the media staff to gauge the potential impact of proposed radio or TV advertisements. VOLUNTEERS Volunteers are the lifeblood of every national, state, and local campaign. Volunteers answer phone calls, staff candidate booths at festivals and county fairs, copy and distribute campaign literature, and serve as the public face of the campaign. They go door to door to solicit votes, or use computerized telephone banks to call targeted voters with scripted messages, two basic methods of voter canvass. Most canvassing, or direct solicitation of support, takes place in the month before the election, when voters are most likely to be paying attention. Closer to Election Day, volunteers begin vital get-out-the-vote (GOTV) efforts, contacting supporters to encourage them to vote and arranging for their transportation to the polls if necessary. In recent years, the Internet and social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter have been important tools used by volunteers to get out the vote and energize supporters.

12 Raising Money 13.1 Evaluate the ways campaigns raise money. uccessful campaigns require a great deal of money. In 2012, for example, S nearly $2 billion was raised by the Democratic and Republican Parties. Presidential candidates raised nearly $1 billion in additional support for their campaigns. And, candidates for the Senate raised $644 million. Candidates for the House, in contrast, raised over $1 billion. Recall, however, that there are more candidates for House than Senate. 3 Efforts to regulate this type of campaign spending are nothing new. They are also far from settled. As spending from individuals, political parties, political action committees (PACs), and other sources continues to rise, it is likely that calls for reform will also continue. The sections that follow detail the current regulations and their implications for candidates running for political office. Regulating Campaign Finance The United States has struggled to regulate campaign spending for well over one hundred years. One early attempt to regulate the way candidates raise campaign resources was enacted in 1883, when Congress passed civil service reform legislation that prohibited solicitation of political funds from federal workers, attempting to halt a corrupt and long-held practice. In 1907, the Tillman Act prohibited corporations from making direct contributions to candidates for federal office. The Corrupt Practices Acts (1910, 1911, and 1925), Hatch Act (1939), and Taft-Hartley Act (1947) all attempted to regulate the manner in which federal candidates finance their campaigns and, to some extent, limit the corrupting influence of campaign spending. Congress did not enact serious, broad campaign finance regulation, however, until the 1970s, in the wake of the Watergate scandal. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and its amendments established disclosure requirements; the Presidential Public Funding Program provided partial public funding for presidential candidates who meet certain criteria; and the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent federal agency, was created to enforce the nation s election laws. Although these provisions altered the campaign landscape, by 2002, it became clear that they were insufficient to regulate ever-increasing campaign expenditures in the United States. Behind the leadership of Senators John McCain (R AZ) and Russell Feingold (D WI), Congress enacted and President George W. Bush signed into law a new set of campaign finance regulations known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) (see Table 13.1). BCRA regulates political advertising and funding. The act, as it was originally passed, limited the broadcast of issue advocacy ads within thirty days of a primary election and sixty days of a general election, and set hard limits on campaign contributions from a number of sources, including individuals, political parties, political action committees, and members of Congress. Opponents of BCRA, including Senator Mitch TABLE 13.1 WHAT ARE THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTION LIMITS UNDER BCRA? Contribution Limit To candidate, per election $2,500 a To national party committee, per year $30,800 a To state/local party committee, per year $10,000 To other political committee, per year $5,000 Total contributions, per 2-year cycle $117,000 a a These limits are for BCRA limits are adjusted in odd-numbered years to account for inflation. SOURCE: Federal Election Commission, 401

13 13.1 McConnell (R KY) and the National Rifle Association, wasted little time in challenging its limits as an infringement on their right to free speech. In a 2003 decision, the Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the government s interest in preventing corruption overrides the free speech rights to which the parties would otherwise be entitled. Thus, BCRA s restrictions on individual expenditures were upheld. 4 The Supreme Court has, however, declared other sections of BCRA unconstitutional. In 2007, for example, the Court held that the thirty- and sixty-day limits placed on issue advocacy ads were unconstitutional, thus opening the door to these electioneering communications throughout the election cycle. 5 And, in 2008, the Court overturned another provision of the act that had attempted to limit the amount of a candidate s own money that could be spent on running for office. 6 More recently, in 2010, the Court handed down a decision in Citizens United v. FEC that declared unconstitutional BCRA s ban on electioneering communications made by corporations and unions. 7 This decision struck a significant blow to BCRA s provisions and has had a dramatic effect on the power of interest groups and corporations in campaigns and elections. As a result of these rulings, campaign spending surpassed all recent records, spending approximately $6 billion on the 2012 election. The cumulative result of these decisions and the Supreme Court s willingness to equate money with speech has been to effectively gut campaign finance law in the United States. Though limits still exist on individuals expenditures to parties and candidates, independent expenditures, or funds spent to advocate for the election of a candidate without coordinating with that candidate s campaign committee, are virtually unlimited. To date, efforts to advance further campaign finance reforms have met with little success in Congress. Sources of Campaign Funding As mentioned previously, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act regulates campaign contributions from a number of sources, including individuals, political parties, members of Congress, personal savings, and political action committees. The Federal Election Commission regulates, records, and discloses these expenditures. The FEC also monitors infractions of campaign finance rules and acts as a quasi-judicial arbiter of conflicts. BCRA and more recent judicial interpretations of the law have also opened the door to a number of other actors in political campaigns. Immediately following enactment of the law, 527 political committees became active in the campaign process. Following the Supreme Court s 2007 actions to lift the limits on issue advocacy ads, 501(c) groups increased their role in electoral politics. Most recently, after the Citizens United decision, Super PACs have become important players in the 2012 elections. INDIVIDUALS Individual contributions are donations from independent citizens. The maximum allowable contribution under federal law for congressional and presidential elections was $2,500 per election to each candidate in , with primary and general elections considered separately. Individuals in were also limited to a total of $117,500 in gifts to all candidates, political action committees, and parties combined per two-year election cycle. These limits rise at the rate of inflation each election cycle. Most candidates receive a majority of all funds directly from individuals, and most individual gifts are well below the maximum level. In one recent election, researchers found that individual donors accounted for 60 percent of contributions to candidates for the House of Representatives, 75 percent of contributions to candidates for the Senate, and 85 percent of contributions to presidential candidates. 8 In 2012, the vast majority of Barack Obama s $600 million fund-raising effort came from individuals. Of those donations, almost 34 percent came from small money donors POLITICAL PARTIES Candidates receive substantial donations from the national and state committees of the Democratic and Republican Parties. Under the current rules, national parties can give up to $5,000 per election to a House candidate and

14 $43,100 to a Senate candidate. In 2012, the Republican and Democratic Parties raised nearly $2 billion. In competitive races, the parties may provide almost 20 percent of their candidates total campaign funds. PERSONAL SAVINGS The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) that no limit could be placed on the amount of money candidates can spend from their own families resources, since such spending is considered a First Amendment right of free speech. 10 For wealthy politicians, this allowance may mean personal spending in the millions. For example, in 2012, former WWE chief executive officer Linda McMahon spent $40 million of her own money to run unsuccessfully for the Senate in Connecticut. Other self-financed candidates also ran for the House and Senate. Interestingly, in 2012, most of these self-financed candidates did not win their bids for office. While self-financed candidates often garner a great deal of attention, most candidates commit much less than $100,000 in family resources to their election bids. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES (PACs) Political action committees (PACs) are officially recognized fund-raising organizations allowed by federal law to make contributions directly to candidates campaigns. A wide variety of groups, including labor unions, corporations, trade unions, ideological issue groups, and even members of Congress seeking to build their party s membership in Congress, may create them. Under current rules, a PAC can give no more than $5,000 per candidate per election, and $15,000 each year to each of the national party committees. Although a good number of PACs of all persuasions existed prior to the 1970s, it was during the 1970s the decade of campaign finance reform that the modern PAC era began. PACs grew in number from 113 in 1972 to a peak of 4,268 in Today, approximately 4,000 PACs are registered with the FEC. These political committees have historically played a major role, particularly in congressional elections. However, in the 2012 election, the role of PACs significantly declined at the expense of other forms of outside spending. PACs spent only $32 million on the 2012 elections. Approximately 61 percent of these funds went to Republican candidates, while 39 percent of these funds went to Democratic candidates (see Figure ). 11 PACs remain one of the most controversial parts of the campaign financing process. Some observers claim that PACs are the embodiment of corrupt special interests that use campaign donations to buy the votes of legislators. Studies, in fact, have confirmed this suspicion. PACs effectively use contributions to punish legislators and affect policy, at least in the short run. 12 Legislators who vote contrary to the wishes of a PAC see their donations withheld, but those who are successful in legislating as the PAC wishes gain the reward of even greater donations. 13 political action committees (PACs) Officially recognized fund-raising organizations that represent interest groups and are allowed by federal law to make contributions directly to candidates campaigns % 5.3% 8.6% 98.9% 86.1% Congressional candidates Presidential candidates Incumbents Open seat candidates Challengers FIGURE HOW DO PACS ALLOCATE THEIR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS? Political action committees are major players in American elections. Most PAC money goes to incumbent candidates running for the House of Representatives or the Senate. SOURCE: Center for Responsive Politics,

15 political committee Organizations created with the primary purpose of influencing electoral outcomes; the term is typically applied only to freestanding interest groups that do not explicitly advocate for the election of a candidate. 501(c) group Interest groups whose primary purpose is not electoral politics. Super PACs Political action committees established to make independent expenditures. independent expenditures Spending for campaign activity that is not coordinated with a candidate s campaign. public funds Donations from general tax revenues to the campaigns of qualifying presidential candidates. matching funds Donations to presidential campaigns whereby every dollar raised from individuals in amounts less than $251 is matched by the federal treasury. 527 POLITICAL COMMITTEES Named for the section of the tax code from which they draw their name, 527 political committees are organizations created with the primary purpose of influencing electoral outcomes. Although 527s technically include candidate campaign committees and party committees, the term is typically applied only to freestanding interest groups that do not explicitly advocate for the election of a candidate. Many unions and partisan organizations such as the College Republican National Committee have formed 527s. 527s are subject to very limited government regulation. The Federal Election Commission monitors the contributions given to these groups. However, no limits are set on how much an individual or other organization may contribute or on how much a group may spend on electoral activities. Thus, during the 2012 campaign, 527 groups spent approximately $343 million. These expenditures narrowly favored Democratic candidates. Notable 527s participating in the 2012 election included ActBlue and EMILY s List on the Democratic side of the aisle and Citizens United on the Republican side of the aisle (c) GROUPS 501(c) groups are interest groups whose primary purpose is not electoral politics. Federal rules, in fact, mandate that no more than half of a 501(c) group s budget be spent on campaign politics. Like 527s, they take their name from the section of the tax code under which they are established. These groups first became significantly involved in electoral politics after the Supreme Court lifted BCRA s ban on issue advocacy. Thus, most of their electoral activity focuses on raising awareness of candidates positions on issues of interest to the group. These groups are not required to disclose the source of their donations. However, they spend significant sums of money on campaigns. In the 2012 election cycle, 501(c) groups spent roughly as much as did 527s. Unlike 527s, however, most of these contributions favored Republican candidates. Examples of notable 501(c) groups include American Values Action and the America s Not Stupid both of which lean Republican, and many state chapters of Planned Parenthood, which tend to lean Democratic in their contributions. 15 SUPER PACS The fastest-growing and arguably most significant external actor in the 2012 elections, Super PACs are a special kind of political action committee established to make independent expenditures, or spending for campaign activity that is not coordinated with a candidate s campaign. Unlike traditional PACs, they may not give money directly to candidates or party committees. However, they may advocate on behalf of candidates. Though Super PACs must disclose the sources of their contributions to the FEC, they may take money from any person or organization interested in influencing the political process. They also are not subject to contribution or expenditure limits, which was abundantly clear in the 2012 elections. Super PACs spent more than $600 million on the 2012 presidential election, with a larger percentage going to Republican Mitt Romney than President Barack Obama. They also played an important role in the 2012 Republican primary, spending close to $100 million, and in many congressional elections. 404 Public Funds Public funds are donations from general tax revenues to the campaigns of qualifying candidates. On the federal level, only presidential candidates are eligible to receive public funds, although in recent years, few candidates have chosen to accept them. Some states also offer public funds to qualifying individuals running for particular offices, especially within the judiciary. A candidate for president can become eligible to receive public funds during the nomination campaign by raising at least $5,000 in individual contributions of $250 or less in each of twenty states. The candidate can then apply for federal matching funds,

16 How Has Campaign Financing Changed Over Time? Campaign financing has changed dramatically in the last ten years. Following the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) in 2002, some expenditures traditionally used in political campaigns were outlawed. But, BCRA, and subsequent interpretations of the law by the Supreme Court, opened the door for other forms of money to play increasingly large roles in the political process. The rise of Super PACs has been one such change. These political action committees came under a great deal of fire during the 2012 election because of the unlimited sums of money they raised and spent from wealthy donors, potentially silencing the voices of average citizens. What Unleashed Outside Spending? 2010 Supreme Court s Citizens United Decision Outside Spending in Millions of 2010 Dollars $ Supreme Court s Wisconsin Right to Life decision lets issue ads proliferate via 527s and 501 (c) groups. 501(c)s Super PACs BCRA takes effect; in 2004, 527 political committees mushroom. Political action committees, other sources PACs 527s The Top 5 Super PAC Spenders in 2012 Were $91,115,402 American Crossroads $66,482,084 Priorities USA Action $142,645,946 Restore Our Future $33,564,920 Americans for Prosperity Republican National Committee $40,166,559 SOURCE: Data from the Center for Responsive Politics and the Federal Election Commission. CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS 1. How have the sources of outside funds changed over the last several elections? What events explain these changes? 2. Why do you think Republican groups spent larger sums of money than Democratic groups? How do Democrats raise and spend money for campaigns? 3. Is further campaign finance reform necessary? Why or why not? 1 405

17 13.1 whereby every dollar raised from individuals in amounts less than $251 is matched by the federal treasury on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Of course, this assumes the Presidential Election Campaign Fund has enough money to do so. Taxpayers who designate $3 of their taxes for this purpose each year when they send in their federal tax returns provide the money for the fund. (Only about 20 percent of taxpayers check off the appropriate box, even though participation does not increase their tax burden.) During the general election campaign, the two major-party presidential nominees can accept a $91.2 million lump-sum payment from the federal government after the candidate accepts his or her nomination. If the candidate accepts the money, it becomes the sole source for financing the campaign. A candidate may refuse the money and be free from the spending cap the government attaches to it. In 2008, Barack Obama was the first presidential candidate to opt out of the public financing system. In 2012, both major-party candidates chose not to accept the public funding in favor of raising unrestricted amounts of private donations. This trend will likely continue into the future. A third-party candidate receives a smaller amount of public funds proportionate to his or her November vote total, if that candidate gains a minimum of 5 percent of the vote. Note that in such a case, the money goes to third-party campaigns only after the election is over; no money is given in advance of the general election. Only two thirdparty candidates have qualified for public campaign funding: John Anderson in 1980, after gaining 7 percent of the vote, and Texas billionaire Ross Perot in 1992, after gaining 19 percent of the vote. Reaching Voters Identify the ways campaigns use the media to reach potential voters. Explore on MyPoliSciLab Simulation: You Are a Campaign Strategist he media play a large role in determining what voters actually see and hear T about the candidate. Media can take a number of different forms; among these are traditional media, new media, and campaign advertisements. Traditional media coverage of a political campaign includes content appearing in newspapers and magazines as well as on radio and TV. New media coverage includes content that appears on the Internet, in blogs, and on social media sites. Both traditional and new media can be very difficult for a campaign to control. Campaigns, however, have a great deal of control over the content they include in their campaign advertisements. 406 Traditional Media During campaign season, the news media constantly report political news. What they report is largely based on news editors decisions of what is newsworthy or fit to print. The press often reports what candidates are doing, such as giving speeches, holding fundraisers, or meeting with party leaders. Reporters may also investigate rumors of a candidate s misdeeds or unflattering personal history, such as run-ins with the law, alleged use of drugs, or alleged sexual improprieties. Although this free media attention may help candidates increase their name recognition, it may prove frustrating for campaigns, which do not control the content of the coverage. For example, studies have shown that reporters are obsessed with the horserace aspect of politics who is ahead, who is behind, and who is gaining to the detriment of the candidates issues and ideas. Public opinion polls, especially tracking polls, many of them taken by news outlets, dominate coverage on network TV in particular. This horse-race coverage can have an effect on how the public views the candidates. Using poll data, journalists often predict the margins by which they expect contenders to win or lose. A projected margin of victory of 5 percentage points can be judged a setback

18 if the candidate had been expected to win by 12 or 15 points. The tone of the media coverage, that a candidate is either gaining or losing support in polls, can also affect whether people decide to give money and other types of support to a candidate. 16 STRATEGIES TO CONTROL MEDIA COVERAGE Candidates and their media consultants use various strategies in an effort to obtain favorable press coverage. First, campaign staff members often seek to isolate the candidate from the press, thus reducing the chances that reporters will bait a candidate into saying something that might damage his or her cause. Naturally, journalists are frustrated by such a tactic, and they demand open access to candidates. Second, the campaign stages media events: activities designed to include brief, clever quotes called sound bites and staged with appealing backdrops so that they will be covered on the TV news and in the newspaper. In this fashion, the candidate s staff can successfully fill the news hole reserved for campaign coverage. Third, campaign staff and consultants have cultivated a technique termed spin they put forward the most favorable possible interpretation for their candidate (and the most negative for their opponent) on any circumstance occurring in the campaign. They also work the press to sell their point of view or at least to ensure it is included in the reporters stories. Fourth, candidates and their representatives have found ways to circumvent traditional reporters by appearing on talk shows such as The View, Ellen, and The Five, in which they have an opportunity to present their views and answer questions. They also make regular appearances on comedy shows, such as Saturday Night Live, The Late Show, The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report CANDIDATE DEBATES The first face-to-face presidential debate in U.S. history did not occur until 1960, and debates did not become a regular part of presidential campaigns until the 1980s. However, they are now an established feature of presidential campaigns as well as races for governor, U.S. senator, and many other offices. Candidates and their staffs recognize the importance of debates as a tool not only for consolidating their voter base but also for correcting misperceptions about the candidate s suitability for office. However, while candidates have complete control over what they say in debates, they cannot control what the news media will highlight and focus on after the debates. Therefore, even though candidates prepare themselves by rehearsing their responses, they cannot avoid the perils of spontaneity. Errors or slips HOW HAVE THE RULES AND FORMAT FOR PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES CHANGED SINCE THE FIRST TELEVISED DEBATES? Presidential debates have come a long way since an ill-at-ease Richard M. Nixon was visually bested by John F. Kennedy in the first set of televised debates. In 2012, President Barack Obama sparred with Governor Mitt Romney in a series of three debates, including one focusing on domestic policy, shown here. 407

19 of the tongue in a debate can affect election outcomes. President Gerald R. Ford s erroneous insistence during an October 1976 debate with Jimmy Carter that Poland was not under Soviet domination (when in fact it was) may have cost him a close election. George Bush s bored expression and repeated glances at his watch during his 1992 debate with Bill Clinton certainly did not help Bush s electoral hopes. In most cases, however, debates do not alter the results of an election, but rather increase knowledge about the candidates and their respective personalities and issue positions, especially among voters who had not previously paid attention to the campaign. New Media Contemporary campaigns have an impressive new array of weapons at their disposal: faster printing technologies, reliable databases, instantaneous Internet publishing and mass , social media sites, autodialed pre-recorded messages, and enhanced telecommunications and teleconferencing. As a result, candidates can gather and disseminate information more quickly and effectively than ever. One outcome of these changes is the ability of candidates to employ rapidresponse techniques: the formulation of prompt and informed responses to changing events on the campaign trail. In response to breaking news of a scandal or issue, for example, candidates can conduct background research, implement an opinion poll and tabulate the results, devise a containment strategy and appropriate spin, and deliver a reply. This capability contrasts strongly with techniques used in earlier campaigns, which took much longer to prepare and had little of the flexibility enjoyed by the contemporary e-campaign. 17 The use of new media takes a number of forms. The most widely used tool is, of course, the Internet. The first use of the Internet in national campaigning came in 1992, when the Democratic presidential ticket of Bill Clinton and Al Gore maintained a Web site that stored electronic versions of their biographical summaries, speeches, press releases, and position papers. The Internet remained something of a virtual brochure until the 2000 elections, when candidates began using and their Web sites as vehicles for fund-raising, recruiting volunteers, and communicating with supporters. By 2006, most campaign Web sites featured downloadable and streaming video and were integrated into the candidate s overall communication and mobilization strategy. In 2012, all of the major candidates running for president and over 90 percent of Democratic and Republican congressional candidates maintained a campaign Web site. The growth of online social media sites, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, has also helped candidates to disseminate their message to citizens. In August 2012, for example, President Barack Obama participated in Reddit.com s Ask Me Anything chat series. He received more than 10,000 questions from citizens and answered ten, including those focusing on the challenges of being president and the role of money in politics. Although these sites have been effective in reaching the politically engaged, early evidence suggests that they do not inspire new demographic groups to become engaged in electoral politics. 18 Many candidates also use new media to target specific constituencies. One way campaigns may do this is through recorded phone messages, or robo-calling. These calls may both raise money and rally supporters for the candidate and spread negative (and sometimes false) information about an opponent. Robo-calls are remarkably efficient; campaign consultants can reach up to 2,500 telephones per minute at only pennies per call. During the 2012 election, candidates also experimented with using smartphone technology to advertise to particular groups of people. Smartphones use GPS technology to determine users locations and provide them with appropriate advertisements when they surf the Internet on their mobile browsers. Potential advertisers may buy ad space in targeted locations; candidates are no exception. Tech-savvy campaign consultants thus used this strategy to purchase mobile Internet advertisements centered on ballparks, fairs, voting locations, or other places where they might find particularly sympathetic or engaged constituencies. 19

20 Take a Closer Look A clear and classic example of negative campaign advertising aired during the 1964 presidential campaign. In an attempt to reinforce the view that his Republican challenger, Senator Barry Goldwater, held extreme views and would be reckless in office, President Lyndon B. Johnson s campaign produced a television ad called Peace Little Girl that was considered so shocking and unfair, it was pulled after only one broadcast. Considerable discussion of the ad in the media, however, ensured that its point was made repeatedly to the electorate. Review the stills of the ad below to consider its impact on politics The ad began with a serene scene depicting a young girl counting the petals she was picking off a daisy. Once the girl said the number nine, a voice-over started counting down a missile launch that ended in images of a nuclear explosion and a mushroom cloud. The viewer then heard the president's voice saying, These are the stakes. CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS 1. What was this ad trying to imply? 2. Why do you think this ad was considered so shocking and unfair? 3. What types of ads would generate similar controversy today? Explain your answer. 409

21 13.1 positive ad Advertising on behalf of a candidate that stresses the candidate s qualifications, family, and issue positions, with no direct reference to the opponent. negative ad Advertising on behalf of a candidate that attacks the opponent s character or platform. contrast ad Ad that compares the records and proposals of the candidates, with a bias toward the candidate sponsoring the ad. inoculation ad Advertising that attempts to counteract an anticipated attack from the opposition before the attack is launched. Campaign Advertisements Candidates and their media consultants may choose to buy airtime in the form of campaign advertisements. These ads may take a number of different forms. Positive ads stress the candidate s qualifications, family, and issue positions with no direct reference to the opponent. The incumbent candidate usually favors positive ads. Negative ads attack the opponent s character or platform. And, with the exception of the candidate s brief, legally required statement that he or she approved the ad, a negative ad may not even mention the candidate who is paying for the airing. Contrast ads compare the records and proposals of the candidates, with a bias toward the candidate sponsoring the ad. Although the number of negative advertisements has increased dramatically during the past two decades, negative advertisements have been a part of American campaigns almost since the nation s founding. In 1796, Federalists portrayed losing presidential candidate Thomas Jefferson as an atheist and a coward. In Jefferson s second bid for the presidency in 1800, Federalists again attacked him, this time spreading a rumor that he was dead. The effects of negative advertising are well documented. Rather than voting for a candidate, voters frequently vote against a candidate by voting for the opponent, and negative ads can provide the critical justification for such a decision. Before the 1980s, well-known incumbents usually ignored negative attacks from their challengers, believing that the proper stance was to rise above the fray. But, after some well-publicized defeats of incumbents in the early 1980s in which negative TV advertising played a prominent role, 20 incumbents began attacking their challengers in earnest. The new rule of politics became An attack unanswered is an attack agreed to. In a further attempt to stave off criticisms from challengers, incumbents began anticipating the substance of their opponents attacks and airing inoculation ads early in the campaign to protect themselves in advance from the other side s spots. Inoculation advertising attempts to counteract an anticipated attack from the opposition before such an attack is launched. For example, a senator who fears a broadside about her voting record on veterans issues might air advertisements that feature veterans or their families in praise of her support. Although paid advertising remains the most controllable aspect of a campaign s strategy, the news media are increasingly having an impact on it. Major newspapers throughout the country have taken to analyzing the accuracy of TV advertisements aired during campaigns a welcome and useful addition to journalists scrutiny of politicians. Toward Reform: The 2012 Presidential Campaign Analyze the 2012 presidential campaign. 410 I n the American political system, any election that includes an incumbent president inevitably becomes a referendum on the previous four years. If the American electorate is satisfied with his policies, the road to reelection can be relatively assured. However, if voters are uncertain or dissatisfied with a president s first term in office, they may select a new occupant for the White House regardless of whether or not the incumbent was directly responsible for their dissatisfaction. That was the primary question that confronted voters in the 2012 presidential race between the Democratic incumbent President Barack Obama and the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, a former governor of the commonwealth of Massachusetts.

22 The Nomination Campaign Unlike 2008, Barack Obama did not face any opposition for the Democratic nomination. It was a different story for Republicans. Selection of the Republican nominee proved to be a long and contentious process featuring some of the same candidates who had sought the nomination four years earlier. The contest began in 2011 with a wide field of candidates, including Romney, who had been preparing to run again for president since his unsuccessful bid in Also seeking the nomination were former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, Representative Michele Bachmann (MN), Georgia entrepreneur Herman Cain, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (GA), former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Texas Governor Rick Perry, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (PA), and Representative Ron Paul (TX). In total, 2,286 delegates were at stake and the winning candidate would need the support of 1,144 of them to become the Republican nominee. THE DEMOCRATIC RACE With no opponent, President Barack Obama avoided the entire primary campaign trail and spent much of the spring and summer of 2012 raising money for his campaign as the Republicans battled one another for their party s nomination THE REPUBLICAN RACE Few observers expected the 2012 Republican contest to be as long and dramatic as it was. Through twenty debates over the course of a year, each candidate sought to portray himself or herself as the conservative best able to win an election in an economic climate that historically would have favored the ouster of an incumbent president (see Figure ). Many observers assumed that Mitt Romney would be an early favorite among Republicans. However, as in 2008, there was no widespread movement toward Romney among social conservatives, with many expressing concerns over his record as a moderate former governor of Massachusetts. They and others also expressed concern with Romney s Mormon faith. Prior to the start of the Republican primaries and caucuses, several contenders showed early promise in polls. When the official contests began in the late winter and early spring of 2012, the first three states with primaries and caucuses delivered three different winners. Rick Santorum narrowly defeated Romney in the Iowa caucuses. Mitt Romney carried New Hampshire, a neighboring state to his home in Massachusetts, and Newt Gingrich carried South Carolina less than two weeks later. Following his victory in Iowa, Santorum went on to win three more states before Super Tuesday, March 6, 2012, on which ten states voted. Of the Super Tuesday contests, Romney carried six states to Santorum s three, and Newt Gingrich won his home state of Georgia. As twelve other states and territories held primaries and caucuses later in March, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum emerged as the only remaining viable candidates. After Santorum won in Kansas, he also took three southern states Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Yet, despite Santorum s handful of victories, Mitt Romney carried the majority of the March contests, and by early April it became apparent that he had enough votes to win the Republican nomination for president. One week after Governor Romney won primaries in Wisconsin, Maryland, and Washington, D.C., he became the presumptive Republican nominee. Rick Santorum officially suspended his campaign on April 10th, and the other remaining candidates followed soon after. The Interim Period A gap of almost two months separated the end of the primary season and the opening of the Republican and Democratic National Conventions. Both campaigns were relatively quiet during the interim period, choosing instead to prepare for the general election. Several notable events that influenced the general election, however, did occur during the summer months. 411

23 Average 5 0 Nov. 6 Nov. 20 Dec. 4 Dec. 18 Jan. 1 Jan. 8 Jan. 22 Date Feb. 5 Feb. 19 Mar. 4 Mar. 18 Apr. 1 Bachmann Gingrich Huntsman Perry Paul Romney Santorum Other None/Any FIGURE HOW DID THE FRONTRUNNER CHANGE THROUGHOUT THE 2012 REPUBLICAN PRIMARY? Reflecting the diversity of the Republican field, many candidates appeared to be the flavor of the week during the nomination campaign. From November 2011 to April 2012, however, three candidates separated themselves from the field Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum. This figure tracks the rise and fall of each candidate s popularity, as well as that of several other Republican candidates. SOURCE: Data from President Obama received encouraging news on June 28 when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a legal challenge to the signature legislative accomplishment of his first term, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which Republicans had labeled Obamacare. The Obama campaign viewed the ruling as an important legal and political victory, even as the Romney campaign vowed to use the issue against the president in the general election. Another moment troubled Obama for the duration of the campaign came in mid-july when the President told a large crowd in Roanoke, Virginia, if you ve got a business, you didn t build that; somebody else made that happen. The remark was carried in national news and received heated criticism from conservative commentators. The comments would be featured in several national television ads against the president in the fall. Governor Romney faced his own political challenges during that summer when he made several verbal gaffes during an overseas trip to Europe and the Middle East prior to the opening of the 2012 Summer Olympics in London. Romney, who had chaired the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah, angered many in London when he questioned whether the city was prepared for the start of the games. Later on that same trip, he also upset Palestinians by making remarks suggesting that Israelis are economically more successful than Palestinians because of cultural differences. National polls at the start of August showed President Obama generally leading his Republican opponent. On Saturday, August 11, the Romney campaign, sensing the need to make headlines prior to the start of the Republican convention at the end of the month, announced the selection of 42-year-old Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as Romney s running mate. Romney s announcement generated great excitement among the Republican base. The six-term member of Congress and chair of the House Budget Committee hailed from what was expected to be a battleground state in the general election. Ryan had gained considerable respect among the Republican base after he and other House Republicans challenged Democrats and the Obama White House with several highprofile legislative proposals aimed at fiscal responsibility and reducing the nation s debt. Romney s selection of Ryan as his running mate was widely viewed as an attempt to

24 13.1 HOW DOES A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE CHOOSE A RUNNING MATE? Governor Mitt Romney chose Representative Paul Ryan, chair of the House Budget Committee, because he believed Ryan would help to shore up support with the conservative base. He also hoped that Ryan would help to deliver votes in his home state of Wisconsin, which many commentators viewed as a swing state. shore up any remaining skepticism about his conservative credentials among the Republican base, and as a strategic effort to make Wisconsin a more competitive in the November election. The Party Conventions The Republican National Convention was held August in Tampa, Florida. Due to the threat of Hurricane Isaac, which loomed just off Florida s West Coast, the order of the convention was changed and most official activity on the opening day of the convention was suspended, with the exception of the unveiling of a debt clock that displayed and updated in real time, the nation s rising national debt. Tuesday, August 28 marked the start of the convention featuring speeches by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and a primetime address by Ann Romney, wife of the presidential nominee. Her speech was designed as a personal address to the nation aimed specifically at appealing to women voters and presenting her husband as relatable and likeable person. On Wednesday, vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan accepted his nomination and delivered a rousing speech to the convention delegates that was highly critical of the Obama administration, but was widely challenged by the media for numerous factual errors. One of the most bizarre moments of the 2012 Republican Convention came on the final day, when actor Clint Eastwood took to the stage in primetime with an empty chair meant to represent President Obama. The unscripted presentation of Eastwood speaking to the empty chair was received well within the convention hall, but met mixed 413

25 13.1 reviews among the viewing public and the media. The next day, in an unexpected move on Twitter, President Obama responded to Eastwood s skit by posting a picture of himself sitting in a chair marked The President with the message: This seat s taken. The Republican Convention concluded with Mitt Romney s acceptance speech, viewed by an estimated 30.3 million people. The speech mixed personal stories with his assessment of the state of the American economy, his plans to build economic growth, move the country toward greater energy independence, and a promise to the American people that if elected President, he would help you and your family. The 2012 Democratic National Convention followed less than a week later on September 4-6 in Charlotte, North Carolina. Controversy erupted on the opening day of the convention when it was reported that the 2012 Democratic Party Platform omitted multiple references to God, and that language affirming Jerusalem as the capital of Israel had been removed. The following day, amendments reinserting the stricken language were offered and adopted, but only after three attempts by the Convention Chair to gauge whether the voice-vote by the convention delegates met the necessary two-thirds support for passage under convention rules. First Lady Michelle Obama delivered the convention s opening night primetime address. Like Ann Romney s speech at the Republican convention, the first lady s remarks were laced with passionate and personal stories of how she and President Obama met and raised a family. The speech was well-received by viewers and produced a standing ovation among the tightly packed delegates in the convention hall. One of the most highly anticipated speeches came on the second night of the convention, when former President Bill Clinton officially nominated President Obama for reelection. Clinton electrified the convention delegates with a message that the Obama administration was on the right track toward economic recovery and prosperity. Clinton s speech received high praise from the media for making complex economic problems sound simple without talking down to the American people. The following night, President Obama s acceptance of the nomination was originally scheduled to occur in a 72,000-seat football stadium, similar to a setting that had worked well for at the Democratic convention in Denver in However, rain and the threat of severe weather led party officials to move the finale back to the convention hall with additional seating to accommodate an audience of approximately 20,000. Many felt that Clinton s remarks the night before would be a tough act for the president to follow, and it was made all the more challenging by news of the venue change. Vice President Joe Biden spoke first, touting his middle-class upbringing and challenging Republican assertions about the direction of the previous four years. Then, President Obama delivered a rousing acceptance speech viewed by 35.7 million people. In his comments, he offered a forceful argument that it was his administration that rescued the American economy from catastrophe and set the country on a path to recovery. 414 The General Election Campaign After the party conventions, the general election campaign kicked off in full force. As the candidates entered the home stretch, the key issue driving both campaigns was the state of the American economy and which candidate would achieve sustained recovery. As the incumbent president, Obama continued to receive considerable blame for the slow, at times stagnant, growth of the American economy over the previous four years. Further complicating their choice, voters received mixed messages about the state of the economy: the stock market and other measures of recovery from the Great Recession showed modest improvement, yet unemployment remained stubbornly high at around 8 percent for most of On the eleventh anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, national security and international affairs came into focus. Terrorists again attacked representatives of the United States overseas, killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Criticism after the incident led the Obama administration to apologize for

26 certain aspects of the administration s handling of the crisis. Governor Romney was also criticized by some for appearing to try to use the crisis to advance his candidacy. A week later, Romney faced his own scandal when a surreptitious video from a private Republican fundraiser in May was released publicly. In it, Governor Romney was seen suggesting to supporters that 47 percent of the American people are dependent on government assistance, labeling them as victims who will vote for the president no matter what. As news of the leaked video broke, Governor Romney initially refused to apologize for the remarks, but later stated on national news that his remarks in the video were wrong. The video resurfaced in numerous anti-romney campaign ads. Both candidates, as well as their vice presidential running mates, spent the final months of the election traveling across the country, attempting to speak to voters and influence their vote on Election Day. One of the best opportunities for both candidates to speak to the voters about the issues was the series of presidential debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. CANDIDATE DEBATES The first presidential debate occurred on Wednesday, October 3, at the University of Denver and focused on domestic policy, especially job creation and the American economy. The week before the debate, most national polls showed Obama holding a small lead over Romney. Both campaigns attempted to downplay expectations of their respective candidate s likely performance during the debates while also suggesting that the other side would perform much better. The format of the first debate featured questions posed by moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS, with responses and rebuttals by the candidates. While neither candidate broke new ground on the issues, Romney repeatedly challenged Obama over the cost of the president s signature healthcare reform legislation, which at one point Romney referred to as Obamacare. It was the first time Romney or any other Republican had spoken the term which Republicans used a derisive way in front of the president. Romney turned to the President and apologized, saying he used the word with all respect. The President responded simply with, I like it. But the first debate would be remembered for Obama s lackluster performance, which would haunt him in the days ahead and redefine the race moving forward. The president was widely criticized for seeming disinterested, distracted, unengaged, and even bored. Romney s performance, on the other hand, helped establish credibility for his candidacy and counter images that he did not understand or wasn t sympathetic to the problems facing the American people. The television audience for the first debate was estimated at more than 67 million viewers and nearly every opinion poll in the following days found that viewers believed Romney was the clear winner. As a result, President Obama s poll numbers fell after the debate, leaving him tied or even trailing Romney in most national surveys. On the day of the first debate, an average of national presidential tracking polls showed Obama was the choice of 49.1 percent of likely voters, while Romney was the choice of 46 percent. By Monday of the following week the Obama-Biden ticket s national average had dropped to 47.9 while Romney-Ryan rose to Almost overnight, the race for the White House had become a real contest. The only vice presidential debate was held on Thursday, October 11 at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky. Fifty-one million viewers watched the faceoff between Vice President Biden and Representative Ryan, far short of the 73 million who had tuned in during 2008 when Biden took on former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. The second presidential debate was held on Tuesday, October 16 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. The town hall format focused primarily on domestic affairs, but unlike the first debate, this second conversation included some discussion of foreign policy. Moderator Candy Crowley of CNN asked questions prepared by eighty-two undecided voters from the New York area selected to attend the debate. The stakes were high for both candidates, but especially for Obama, who needed to reclaim lost ground. With a TV viewing audience of nearly 66 million people, this time the president was significantly more aggressive toward Governor Romney. Among the most notable

27 13.1 TheLivingConstitution No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 4 This provision of Article II is referred to as the presidential eligibility clause. It requires that the president be a natural-born citizen, at least thirty-five years old, and a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years. The Framers believed that each of these requirements was necessary to have a reasoned, respected chief executive who was loyal to the United States and familiar with its internal politics. In the 1700s, for example, it was not uncommon for a diplomat to spend years outside the country; without air travel and instantaneous communication, it was easy to become detached from politics at home. In recent years, however, much of the controversy swirling around this section of the Constitution has centered on the natural-born citizen clause. Successful politicians from both sides of the aisle have been born outside the United States and are thus ineligible to serve as president, even if they have become naturalized citizens. The natural-born citizen clause was also the subject of much controversy during and following the 2008 presidential election. Some observers questioned the circumstances surrounding the birth of President Barack Obama and wondered if this made him ineligible to serve as president of the United States. Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father. Some critics claimed that his father s British lineage (Kenya was a colony of Great Britain at the time of Obama s birth) governed his citizenship and therefore that he should be ineligible to serve as president. Other critics argued that Obama s birth certificate was inauthentic, even though his official birth certificate filed with the Hawaii Department of Health had been validated. Even after Obama had spent two years as president, in mid-2010, 27 percent of Americans and 41 percent of Republicans said they did not believe the president was born in the United States. a To attempt to silence the cries of these so-called birthers, in April 2011, President Obama released to the media a certified copy of his certificate of live birth. However, some Americans still rejected the validity of this birth certificate; the state of Arizona, for example, required that the birth certificate be validated again before the president s name could appear on that state s ballot during the 2012 presidential election. CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS 1. Are the Framers concerns about birth and residency as relevant today as they were 200 years ago? Why or why not? 2. What documents, if any, should a potential presidential candidate have to present to prove age and citizenship? a CNN Poll, August 4, 2010, quotes by the candidates during the second debate was an oddly phrased statement by Romney that as governor of Massachusetts he has requested and received binders full of women qualified to serve in his administration. The phrase was perceived by some as insensitive to women and became widely parodied on the Internet. The general consensus following the second debate was that President Obama s performance was substantially better than in the first debate; most polls agreed. The final presidential debate was held at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida on Monday, October 22. Of the three debates, it was the least watched, with a television viewing audience estimated at 59.2 million. The candidates sat together at a table and veteran CBS correspondent Bob Schieffer moderated the debate. It was planned that the last debate would focus exclusively on foreign policy and while the candidates did spend much of the time discussing foreign policy issues such as the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the Arab Spring, the Syrian civil war, and Iran s nuclear program both candidates also used the setting to raise various points about their domestic economic plans on job creation, education, and the national deficit.

28 As in the second debate, the president was more aggressive, and polls following the debate again suggested that President Obama had outperformed Governor Romney. The Obama campaign, however, appeared to have made only marginal progress in recovering from his disastrous showing in the first debate. Neither candidate showed any significant signs of momentum heading into the final weeks of the campaign, though both sides proclaimed publicly that they were headed to victory. Polls reflected that the race was within the margin of error, with Romney recording a slight lead of 47.9 percent to Obama s 47 percent three days after their final joint appearance on national television. THE FINAL DAYS Heading into the final push, key swing states such as Colorado, Virginia, New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida, and Wisconsin remained too evenly split for most national polls and news organizations to predict a clear advantage for either candidate, but a natural disaster lingering on the horizon would make a profound difference. Hurricane Sandy had been churning off the Eastern Seaboard of the United States for nearly a week. With landfall imminent, both campaigns were forced to cancel events in Virginia, North Carolina, and the Washington, D.C. area to avoid the appearance of campaigning while a storm lingered, and also to ensure that campaign events did not cause law enforcement and other first responders to be diverted from storm preparation efforts. One week before Election Day, the megastorm slammed into Atlantic City, New Jersey and the Delmarva Peninsula on Monday, October 29. In terms of size, Hurricane Sandy was one of the largest to strike the United States in modern recorded history. At 13.1 HOW DO CANDIDATES REACH OUT TO VOTERS FOR SUPPORT? Candidates hold large speeches, rallies and events in an attempt to energize potential supporters. Here, President Obama speaks to a gathering in Madison, Wisconsin, in the weeks before the election. 417